Exposure measurement error in PM2.5 health effects studies: a pooled analysis of eight personal exposure validation studies

Exposure measurement error is a concern in long-term PM2.5 health studies using ambient concentrations as exposures. We assessed error magnitude by estimating calibration coefficients as the association between personal PM2.5 exposures from validation studies and typically available surrogate exposu...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Environmental health 2014-01, Vol.13 (1), p.2-2, Article 2
Main Authors: Kioumourtzoglou, Marianthi-Anna, Spiegelman, Donna, Szpiro, Adam A, Sheppard, Lianne, Kaufman, Joel D, Yanosky, Jeff D, Williams, Ronald, Laden, Francine, Hong, Biling, Suh, Helen
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Air Pollutants - analysis
Air pollution
Bias
Calibration
Cities
Environmental Exposure - analysis
Environmental Exposure - statistics & numerical data
Environmental health
Environmental protection
Exposure
Health risk assessment
Health risks
Heterogeneity
Humans
Linear Models
Motor vehicles
Outdoor air quality
Particle Size
Particulate matter
Particulate Matter - analysis
Research Design
Sulfates - analysis
Uncertainty
United States
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Exposure measurement error is a concern in long-term PM2.5 health studies using ambient concentrations as exposures. We assessed error magnitude by estimating calibration coefficients as the association between personal PM2.5 exposures from validation studies and typically available surrogate exposures. Daily personal and ambient PM2.5, and when available sulfate, measurements were compiled from nine cities, over 2 to 12 days. True exposure was defined as personal exposure to PM2.5 of ambient origin. Since PM2.5 of ambient origin could only be determined for five cities, personal exposure to total PM2.5 was also considered. Surrogate exposures were estimated as ambient PM2.5 at the nearest monitor or predicted outside subjects' homes. We estimated calibration coefficients by regressing true on surrogate exposures in random effects models. When monthly-averaged personal PM2.5 of ambient origin was used as the true exposure, calibration coefficients equaled 0.31 (95% CI:0.14, 0.47) for nearest monitor and 0.54 (95% CI:0.42, 0.65) for outdoor home predictions. Between-city heterogeneity was not found for outdoor home PM2.5 for either true exposure. Heterogeneity was significant for nearest monitor PM2.5, for both true exposures, but not after adjusting for city-average motor vehicle number for total personal PM2.5. Calibration coefficients were
ISSN:1476-069X
1476-069X
DOI:10.1186/1476-069X-13-2